I think they should really be shooting towards a manned mission. Having actual people on the ship makes mission completion that much more important.
As I see it, manned missions to Mars will create a lot of extra problems, because I'm not sure that people can handle such a journey psychologically.
I think that you need to be a very strong person to deal with the fact that your home (Earth) is only a little dot far in the sky, and that returning takes at least some months...
Till then MS is there, it's better, it's virtually universal, why WOULD anyone use anything else???
As I see it, the first step is making people aware of the problems of Microsoft's document formats. My e-mail signature is almost always a link to a not too technical Microsoft critical page. Here are some links I sometimes use :
I'm aware that most people don't change their habits after reading those pages, but a lot of them do think : "He is probabely right, but... (bla bla difficult blah blah used to blah blah)" This makes them think why they are using Microsoft stuff, which is a good thing. They will formulate arguments for using their MS programs, which is better than just using them because they are ignorant.
The fact that the percentages for the 7 `essential elements' add up to 100 pc, looks very strange to me. Does it mean that every second of a movie can be classified into one of these categories ? I wonder which criteria they are using for this.
Ask any computer user, from a home web surfer to an IT manager, what they consider to be the worst security threats. My guess is they would list things like MS Outlook viruses, buffer overflows, ActiveX controls, spam and Gator.
One of the worst security threats are bad/old passwords. I dont't want to count the systems of which the root/administrator password is just `admin', `root', `administrator' or `winadmin'.
Four years ago, a collegue of mine has left after a fight with our boss. If this collegue wants to, he still can log in on our system, and delete all our files. Just because we don't change the password.
No matter how well your system is secured, as long as people don't care about passwords, it won't help a bit.
I wonder where they'll draw the line of `unsolicited email'. Which mails fall under this category ? For mails like `RRApply for a online mortgage loan 247', it is clear, but if I send a mail to somebody, and this person doesn't like me, can he accuse me for sending unsolicited email ?
I.e. "By sending unsolicited email to me, you accept being added to my spamback list."
This is indeed a justification for you to send spam. But I guess all spammers think they have a justification to send their unsolicited emails. This illustrates that there are `good' and `bad' reasons to send spam.
I guess you are able to decide yourself wether a reason for sending spam is good (e.g. spamback list) or bad (e.g. making money from spam), but I'm not sure everyone on the Internet is.
That's why I think no one should send unsolicited emails for wathever reason, because people who don't see the difference between `evil' and `other' spam can use your behaviour as an excuse to send spam themselves. (They shouldn't, but they will.)
If they want to send unsolicited junk mail, either because they think that it's okay, or they don't care that it's wrong, they've got no right to complain about the same thing being done to them, and people who have been spammed by them suffer no karmic penalty for doing so.
If people are sending spam to a spammer for this reason, I think they're not very different from the spammer himself. They think it's okay to send unsolicited junk mail (to the spammer), so they've got no right to complain about the same thing being done to them.
If you continue this logic, a spammer has an argument to keep on sending spam.
I think that errors of someone else should never be used to justify one of your own.
It just catched my attention that the GNU GPL refers to the LGPL as the `GNU Library General Public License', while the LGPL calls itself the `GNU Lesser General Public License'.
The best defense to lower crime AND protect liberties, is to have STRONG deterents to commiting crime.
It would even be better if all people were aware of their responsabilities for the society, and showed some respect for the rest of the world. Sadly enough there is no trivial way to achieve this.
I'm not very sure it's a good thing that Microsoft's applications run under a Linux operating system. This might increase the use of MS's closed document formats (doc, xls,...) by Linux users.
I think that alternative office environments, like OpenOffice.org, are far more important. These apps import MS documents without a lot of trouble, and save the documents by default in a documented file format.
If only more people knew about (and trusted) the cheap alternatives for MS Office, then the number of closed document formats in digital communcation might reduce at last.
I tried to build it on FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE-p7, but it didn't work. The error log complains about `No iconv() implementation found in C library or libiconv'. I installed the iconv port, but it didn't help.
Although dyne:bolic seems only to provide free software, it's a little short on packages. Morphix (which is based on Knoppix) avoids non-free software as well, but includes more packages. This makes it more useful as a demonstration for free software, I think.
Note that Knoppix is way less idealistic than Debian.
Hey, thank you for pointing this out. You're right, I discovered acrobat reader on the CD. I'm now looking at dyne:bolic, on their website they claim only using free software.
It isn't just a Linux distro; it is specifically a free software distro.
I think this makes Debian great. It's a complete operating system, which only uses free software. When I create software for our youth movement, I mostly run it under Debian, so that people can see what free software can do.
The Knoppix CD, which is based on Debian, is also a very useful tool to demonstrate the power of free software to `I-thought-Microsoft-is-the-only-option people'.
I think every admin will install the software of which he thinks it's the best for the job. The question is, how does he know ?
Did he try the different alternatives ? Or did he hear it from someone ? A problem here is that people tend to have more trust in what well known big companies say, than in strange ideas of those even stranger geeks.
Right. Add France and their assured veto of any solution that required force. Any possibility for a constructive discussion and procedure from that point becomes impossible.
I follow you there. But I don't think the errors of other people can justify the ones of your own.
Assuming that conflict is not a viable option to solve problems is naive in my opinion. In any case, an infinite compromise is not possible so a decision should rest on majority opinion based on a rational argument. If that isn't possible, then I think it's right to stand up for yourself.
But what do you call a rational argument ? I think that America thinks there arguments are rational, but the French will think there arguments are rational too. What if every country stands up for itself whenever it doesn't agree with the UN ? Or is the right to act independently some exclusive US right ? I don't see a reason for that, except maybe that they have more weapons than everyone else. I really hope that this isn't the reason...
So, you condemn the president for acting as you do. The two kids are Saddam and his citizens, and the president is you. Stepping up, and stopping it.
I see it differently. When my kids are fighting, I don't stop them by killing the one of which I think he's right. I don't need any violence to stop them either. If I put myself between them, and ask them to stop, they stop. This has to do with some kind of respect I created.
The president tries to kill Saddam, because he thinks (and he's right there) that Saddam is doing wrong things. But Saddam kills his citizens because Saddam thinks they're doing wrong things too. So from this point of view, they are doing both the same.
Heck, I think this whole situation is very difficult, and I guess that's why I don't ever want to be president of a country with an army like the one of the US...
Some people just aren't rational and no amount of constructive thought
or discussion will get them to see the other's argument.
To be honest, I don't think that the discussion has been very
constructive so far. For a constructive discussion, both parties should
be `open' for a solution they both can agree with.
I have the impression that both Saddam and Bush have the idea that
the other party is `laughing in their face', and for restoring their
sense of honour they have to punish their opponent. This way, a
constructive solution is never possible. (Nobody will ever agree being
punished.)
I think Bush should have gone to Saddam. He should have proposed to
forget the past, to look at the problem now, and to search for
solutions. If this wouldn't work out, an independent person, with some
experience in discussing difficult topics, could moderate the
meetings.
If Saddam wouldn't react on a rational way, I think people would
organise manifestations against the attitude of Saddam, instead of the
anti-American manifestations we're seeing now.
Slashdot Mirror
If you managed to solve one of these annoyances, you might post the solution on this RTFM site.
As I see it, manned missions to Mars will create a lot of extra problems, because I'm not sure that people can handle such a journey psychologically.
I think that you need to be a very strong person to deal with the fact that your home (Earth) is only a little dot far in the sky, and that returning takes at least some months...
As I see it, the first step is making people aware of the problems of Microsoft's document formats. My e-mail signature is almost always a link to a not too technical Microsoft critical page. Here are some links I sometimes use :
I'm aware that most people don't change their habits after reading those pages, but a lot of them do think : "He is probabely right, but... (bla bla difficult blah blah used to blah blah)" This makes them think why they are using Microsoft stuff, which is a good thing. They will formulate arguments for using their MS programs, which is better than just using them because they are ignorant.
... because it encourages children to take pills !
The fact that the percentages for the 7 `essential elements' add up to 100 pc, looks very strange to me. Does it mean that every second of a movie can be classified into one of these categories ? I wonder which criteria they are using for this.
One of the worst security threats are bad/old passwords. I dont't want to count the systems of which the root/administrator password is just `admin', `root', `administrator' or `winadmin'.
Four years ago, a collegue of mine has left after a fight with our boss. If this collegue wants to, he still can log in on our system, and delete all our files. Just because we don't change the password.
No matter how well your system is secured, as long as people don't care about passwords, it won't help a bit.
It's not easy to define something like `art'. As the former Belgian band Noordkaap stated (link in Dutch, sorry) :
I wonder where they'll draw the line of `unsolicited email'. Which mails fall under this category ? For mails like `RRApply for a online mortgage loan 247', it is clear, but if I send a mail to somebody, and this person doesn't like me, can he accuse me for sending unsolicited email ?
They explain it on there web site
This is indeed a justification for you to send spam. But I guess all spammers think they have a justification to send their unsolicited emails. This illustrates that there are `good' and `bad' reasons to send spam.
I guess you are able to decide yourself wether a reason for sending spam is good (e.g. spamback list) or bad (e.g. making money from spam), but I'm not sure everyone on the Internet is.
That's why I think no one should send unsolicited emails for wathever reason, because people who don't see the difference between `evil' and `other' spam can use your behaviour as an excuse to send spam themselves. (They shouldn't, but they will.)
If people are sending spam to a spammer for this reason, I think they're not very different from the spammer himself. They think it's okay to send unsolicited junk mail (to the spammer), so they've got no right to complain about the same thing being done to them.
If you continue this logic, a spammer has an argument to keep on sending spam.
I think that errors of someone else should never be used to justify one of your own.
It just catched my attention that the GNU GPL refers to the LGPL as the `GNU Library General Public License', while the LGPL calls itself the `GNU Lesser General Public License'.
The study itself seems to be unaccessable, but you can find a html version in Google's cache.
It would even be better if all people were aware of their responsabilities for the society, and showed some respect for the rest of the world. Sadly enough there is no trivial way to achieve this.
I'm not very sure it's a good thing that Microsoft's applications run under a Linux operating system. This might increase the use of MS's closed document formats (doc, xls,...) by Linux users.
I think that alternative office environments, like OpenOffice.org, are far more important. These apps import MS documents without a lot of trouble, and save the documents by default in a documented file format.
If only more people knew about (and trusted) the cheap alternatives for MS Office, then the number of closed document formats in digital communcation might reduce at last.
Yes I did. iconv depends on libiconv.
I tried to build it on FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE-p7, but it didn't work. The error log complains about `No iconv() implementation found in C library or libiconv'. I installed the iconv port, but it didn't help.
Although dyne:bolic seems only to provide free software, it's a little short on packages. Morphix (which is based on Knoppix) avoids non-free software as well, but includes more packages. This makes it more useful as a demonstration for free software, I think.
Hey, thank you for pointing this out. You're right, I discovered acrobat reader on the CD. I'm now looking at dyne:bolic, on their website they claim only using free software.
I think this makes Debian great. It's a complete operating system, which only uses free software. When I create software for our youth movement, I mostly run it under Debian, so that people can see what free software can do.
The Knoppix CD, which is based on Debian, is also a very useful tool to demonstrate the power of free software to `I-thought-Microsoft-is-the-only-option people'.
I think every admin will install the software of which he thinks it's the best for the job. The question is, how does he know ?
Did he try the different alternatives ? Or did he hear it from someone ? A problem here is that people tend to have more trust in what well known big companies say, than in strange ideas of those even stranger geeks.
I follow you there. But I don't think the errors of other people can justify the ones of your own.
But what do you call a rational argument ? I think that America thinks there arguments are rational, but the French will think there arguments are rational too. What if every country stands up for itself whenever it doesn't agree with the UN ? Or is the right to act independently some exclusive US right ? I don't see a reason for that, except maybe that they have more weapons than everyone else. I really hope that this isn't the reason...
So, you condemn the president for acting as you do. The two kids are Saddam and his citizens, and the president is you. Stepping up, and stopping it.
I see it differently. When my kids are fighting, I don't stop them by killing the one of which I think he's right. I don't need any violence to stop them either. If I put myself between them, and ask them to stop, they stop. This has to do with some kind of respect I created.
The president tries to kill Saddam, because he thinks (and he's right there) that Saddam is doing wrong things. But Saddam kills his citizens because Saddam thinks they're doing wrong things too. So from this point of view, they are doing both the same.
Heck, I think this whole situation is very difficult, and I guess that's why I don't ever want to be president of a country with an army like the one of the US...
Some people just aren't rational and no amount of constructive thought or discussion will get them to see the other's argument.
To be honest, I don't think that the discussion has been very constructive so far. For a constructive discussion, both parties should be `open' for a solution they both can agree with.
I have the impression that both Saddam and Bush have the idea that the other party is `laughing in their face', and for restoring their sense of honour they have to punish their opponent. This way, a constructive solution is never possible. (Nobody will ever agree being punished.)
I think Bush should have gone to Saddam. He should have proposed to forget the past, to look at the problem now, and to search for solutions. If this wouldn't work out, an independent person, with some experience in discussing difficult topics, could moderate the meetings.
If Saddam wouldn't react on a rational way, I think people would organise manifestations against the attitude of Saddam, instead of the anti-American manifestations we're seeing now.